The Big Bang The Big Bang is a complicated theory on the origin of the universe. The theory states that a small explosion went into a state of inflation that made the universe. Inflation is the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. Experts in the field believe it happened around thirteen billion years ago.The theory has not been completely proven yet. Four out of ten Americans believe in the Big Bang Theory. The number is growing more and more. The Big Bang was like no explosion anyone might witness on Earth today. For instance, a hydrogen bomb explosion, whose center registers approximately 100 million degrees Celsius, moves through the air at about 300 meters per second. In contrast, cosmologists believe the Big Bang flung energy in all directions at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second, a hundred thousand times faster than the H-bomb) and estimate that the temperature of the entire universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a small fraction of a second after the explosion. Even the cores of the hottest stars in today's universe are much cooler than that.There's another important quality of the Big Bang that makes it unique. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe. Another interesting fact is that people call it the “ The Big Bang “ meanwhile, it was actually an extremely small explosion. There were so many people who contributed so much to the theory. The main person was George Lemaître who was a Belgian priest. Many people ignored his theory due to him having no proof. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. Edwin Hubble was a major contributor but not the discoverer. He was also made what is now known as Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the world. In 1927, Hubble discovered that the distances to faraway galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts,an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction. Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other. Big Bang theorists claim that all of the galaxies, stars, and planets still retain the explosive motion of the moment of creation and are moving away from each other at great speed. This supposition came from an unusual finding about our neighboring galaxies. In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, announced that all of the galaxies he had observed were receding from us, and from each other, at speeds of up to several thousand miles per second.In cosmology, the Steady State Theory is a not a suggested theory and model alternative to the Big Bang Theory of the universe's origin. Steady State shows, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands. While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the first half of the 20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of professional cosmologists and other scientists, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and an infinite age of the universe.Quasi-steady state cosmology was proposed in 1993 by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar as a new representation of the steady state ideas meant to explain additional features unaccounted for in the initial proposal. The theory suggests pockets of creation occurring over time within the universe, sometimes referred to as minibangs, mini-creation events, or little bangs. After the observation of an accelerating universe, further modifications of the idea were made.While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories—the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, observational confirmation of the Big Bang scenario came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and later when its spectrum was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body. Since then, astrophysicists have incorporated observational and theoretical additions into the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory cannot be proven through visual observation. Most people are aware that the light from an object three million light years away will take three million years to reach the Earth. In this way, scientists can ‘look’ back in time to see far into the history of our universe. This is limited, however, as at one point the universe was dark. Even the most powerful telescopes of the future will not be able to look into the first billion years of our universe. The Big Bang Theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang Theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.The Big Bang Theory is so important in the way the people think about the origin of the universe. Such information could be so useful and interesting in everyday life. In conclusion, The Big Bang Theory appears to be the most logical scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. There is no doubt that the universe had a beginning and that the formation of the world was a supernatural event. The endless ideas of how the Earth was created could very well now be over. The Big Bang is becoming more and more convincing to people due to the constant revision of the theory. It was once the ultimate mystery and now the evidence is showing more and more.

LEAVE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISCM PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A MIDDLE SCHOOL PAPER

The Big Bang Theory provides a viable solutionexplanation to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself isall scientific theories are constantly being revised. Asas more observations are made and more research is conducted., tThe Big Bang Theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial as more research in this is done.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

The Big Bang Theory provides a viable solutionexplanation to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself isall scientific theories are constantly being revised. Asas more observations are made and more research is conducted., tThe Big Bang Theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial as more research in this is done.

Thank you I appreciate taking time out of your day and helping me

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

Shaffy - nice writeup, especially for a middle school chap. I won't even bother to touch the science, since that's something I'm woefully ignorant about - but Imma learnin'...

I would suggest deleting the word "that" in virtually every usage you have in your paper - they are unnecessary and there are many. Here's a quick example...

Quote

In 1927, Hubble discovered that the distances to faraway galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts,an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction. Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other.

Good luck on the paper!

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving their god is. - neopagan

Shaffy - nice writeup, especially for a middle school chap. I won't even bother to touch the science, since that's something I'm woefully ignorant about - but Imma learnin'...

I would suggest deleting the word "that" in virtually every usage you have in your paper - they are unnecessary and there are many. Here's a quick example...

Quote

In 1927, Hubble discovered that the distances to faraway galaxies were strongly correlated with their redshifts,an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity, regardless of direction. Assuming that we are not at the center of a giant explosion, the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from each other.

Good luck on the paper!

Thanks Neopagan! I will be sure to fix that.I've spent a lot of time on it and you telling me its a nice "writeup" just makes my day thank you

-Shaffy

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

Good first draft, Shaffy. But note that you may well have to rewrite it based on comments here.

I'm going to offer some ideas, but it's up to you to incorporate them.

First off, add an extra line break between paragraphs. It makes it much easier to read.

The Big Bang, despite the name, was anything but an explosion. It was an expansion of very dense and hot matter that had previously been compacted closely together. Much like gas held under pressure in a tank. That also gives you an easy way to illustrate why the universe has been cooling off in general - because as a gas expands, it cools. You can demonstrate this by taking a can of compressed air and spraying some air out of the nozzle, causing the can to get cold.

Inflation and the stretching of space are good as far as I can tell. There's no boundary to the universe as far as anyone can tell, but a good analogy is if you put a bunch of dots on a balloon, and then blow up the balloon. The dots stay at the same place, but the space between them increases.

However, it is not correct to say that objects in the universe have some velocity imparted to them by the Big Bang. It is the space between things which is expanding, thus giving the appearance that everything is moving away from us. Note my example of dots on a balloon - the dots themselves aren't really moving at all. It's the material of the balloon that's moving and stretching. The effects of the expansion of space are cumulative - meaning that as space stretches, the 'new' space also starts to stretch. This is why objects that are further away from us seem to be moving faster.

You also might want to note that we can't see past about 380,000 years after the Big Bang because before then, the universe was not transparent to radiation, because electrons and protons had not cooled sufficiently to form atoms until then. That is what the cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of - the time before atoms existed.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the term "Big Bang" was coined by a detractor of the theory, Fred Hoyle, who had his own theory that the universe was in a steady state instead of expanding. He was being sarcastic when he gave it that name. He later conceded that he was wrong and that the universe is indeed expanding.

Its fun to write about things that go bang, but the science is more interesting here.

Homework is hard sometimes, isn't it? I still have nightmares about it and I'm really old.

Good luck. If this were me, I'd be writing my first draft three hours before it was due and I wouldn't have time for feedback. Good on you for doing it right.

It is the space between things which is expanding, thus giving the appearance that everything is moving away from us. <snip> The effects of the expansion of space are cumulative - meaning that as space stretches, the 'new' space also starts to stretch. This is why objects that are further away from us seem to be moving faster.

Thus, nothing is expanding at an exponential rate. The dots are moving but not of their own accord. Nothing is moving them around and around in their geosynchronous orbits. Everything is whirling, moving, expanding and nothing is pushing everything away from each other.

In theory, everything stops vibrating or moving at absolute zero. If everything is constantly moving then there is no such thing as absolute zero. Why does the nothing of space continue to expand and push everything apart? Nothing is getting bigger, nothing is sitting still.

Nothing dies. Nothing stops. Everything changes exactly the same as it did before nothing happened.

The Big bang...nothing happened.

To be continued.

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Thus, nothing is expanding at an exponential rate. The dots are moving but not of their own accord. Nothing is moving them around and around in their geosynchronous orbits. Everything is whirling, moving, expanding and nothing is pushing everything away from each other.

All you're showing here is that you didn't really understand what I said, so your attempt to be mocking simply doesn't work.

You will probably want to ditch the idea that space is 'nothing' right here and now. Because it isn't. If it were nothing, there wouldn't be anything there. Instead, there is space.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell

In theory, everything stops vibrating or moving at absolute zero. If everything is constantly moving then there is no such thing as absolute zero. Why does the nothing of space continue to expand and push everything apart? Nothing is getting bigger, nothing is sitting still.

If space were nothing, how could it have a temperature? In actual fact, space has an ambient temperature of roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Space is not nothing. Stuff happens in it all the time, whether or not anyone notices, a concept known as [wiki]vacuum energy[/wiki].

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell

Nothing dies. Nothing stops. Everything changes exactly the same as it did before nothing happened.

The Big bang...nothing happened.

To be continued.

And this is all due to your misconception of what space is. Space is not nothing. So instead of trying (and failing) to be mocking, you should spend some time actually learning about it.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I don't see anything mocking in Mr Blackwell's post. It seems he has been giving the subject some thought and your post seemed to provide a convenient jumpig off point for him to discuss these thoughts, which as he said are TBC.

@jaimehlers:From what I remember, the Universe, in the beginning, was pure energy. Matter couldn't form until it cooled down.

Whoa... you are really old.

Shaffy, excellent job. Quite above average for middle school.A little wordy in spots, but that will improve as you write more stuff.

You might want to mention that the Hubble "Constant" has been changed a number of times. When I took a cosmology course back in the early 90's they were using a value about 2/3s of the present value. A number of observations since that time have seemed to zero in the value at around ~69 (km/s) / Mpc. these changes have come about as we have developed new and more effective ways of observing the universe, and been able to gather more data about it.

But if you turn in the paper as is, I think you'll probably get a good grade.

I don't see anything mocking in Mr Blackwell's post. It seems he has been giving the subject some thought and your post seemed to provide a convenient jumpig off point for him to discuss these thoughts, which as he said are TBC.

Given statements like "nothing is moving them around and around in their geosynchronous orbits" and "Nothing dies. Nothing stops. Everything changes the same as it did before nothing happened", it's hard to take it any other way but an attempt at mockery or something along those lines.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Good first draft, Shaffy. But note that you may well have to rewrite it based on comments here.

I'm going to offer some ideas, but it's up to you to incorporate them.

First off, add an extra line break between paragraphs. It makes it much easier to read.

The Big Bang, despite the name, was anything but an explosion. It was an expansion of very dense and hot matter that had previously been compacted closely together. Much like gas held under pressure in a tank. That also gives you an easy way to illustrate why the universe has been cooling off in general - because as a gas expands, it cools. You can demonstrate this by taking a can of compressed air and spraying some air out of the nozzle, causing the can to get cold.

Inflation and the stretching of space are good as far as I can tell. There's no boundary to the universe as far as anyone can tell, but a good analogy is if you put a bunch of dots on a balloon, and then blow up the balloon. The dots stay at the same place, but the space between them increases.

However, it is not correct to say that objects in the universe have some velocity imparted to them by the Big Bang. It is the space between things which is expanding, thus giving the appearance that everything is moving away from us. Note my example of dots on a balloon - the dots themselves aren't really moving at all. It's the material of the balloon that's moving and stretching. The effects of the expansion of space are cumulative - meaning that as space stretches, the 'new' space also starts to stretch. This is why objects that are further away from us seem to be moving faster.

You also might want to note that we can't see past about 380,000 years after the Big Bang because before then, the universe was not transparent to radiation, because electrons and protons had not cooled sufficiently to form atoms until then. That is what the cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of - the time before atoms existed.

Ok thank you I appreciate you taking the time to read my paper

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

@jaimehlers:From what I remember, the Universe, in the beginning, was pure energy. Matter couldn't form until it cooled down.

Whoa... you are really old.

Shaffy, excellent job. Quite above average for middle school.A little wordy in spots, but that will improve as you write more stuff.

You might want to mention that the Hubble "Constant" has been changed a number of times. When I took a cosmology course back in the early 90's they were using a value about 2/3s of the present value. A number of observations since that time have seemed to zero in the value at around ~69 (km/s) / Mpc. these changes have come about as we have developed new and more effective ways of observing the universe, and been able to gather more data about it.

But if you turn in the paper as is, I think you'll probably get a good grade.

Thanks Dr H! Your kind words are greatly appreciated

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

Your paper is great. Please don't let my little sidestep influence what you have written in any way. I am just using this thread to explore ideas of my own. Jaimehler's comments are just a spring board.

And I mean you no disrespect, Jaimehlers. It is not my intention to mock you or the ideas you espouse.

Thus, nothing is expanding at an exponential rate. The dots are moving but not of their own accord. Nothing is moving them around and around in their geosynchronous orbits. Everything is whirling, moving, expanding and nothing is pushing everything away from each other.

All you're showing here is that you didn't really understand what I said, so your attempt to be mocking simply doesn't work.

You will probably want to ditch the idea that space is 'nothing' right here and now. Because it isn't. If it were nothing, there wouldn't be anything there. Instead, there is space.

In theory, everything stops vibrating or moving at absolute zero. If everything is constantly moving then there is no such thing as absolute zero. Why does the nothing of space continue to expand and push everything apart? Nothing is getting bigger, nothing is sitting still.

If space were nothing, how could it have a temperature? In actual fact, space has an ambient temperature of roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Space is not nothing. Stuff happens in it all the time, whether or not anyone notices, a concept known as [wiki]vacuum energy[/wiki].

You believe in the fairytale of dark matter? How is that different than the fairytale of God? There are all kinds of theories but no proof. Math is a language. Language can be falsified or used for lying...or obscuring the truth. It is certainly open to misinterpretation.

I don't know what space is. I'm just reasonably sure it's not nothing, because nothing wouldn't have properties like temperature.

And actually, I wasn't saying that matter doesn't move. Although, I can see why you would say that, since one interpretation of quantum theory is that gravity is simply the curvature of space-time (which again brings up the question of just what space is). But even without that, we still have electromagnetism, which also creates motion.

I'm not married to the concept of either dark matter or dark energy. They make sense, at least in context, but I ran across a really interesting article last night which said that the existence of singularities within a model of physics indicates that something in that model is broken. In my opinion, they're simply us grasping at a way to explain why things in the universe happen the way they do.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I don't know what space is. I'm just reasonably sure it's not nothing, because nothing wouldn't have properties like temperature.

See...here is the thing I have trouble understanding. It is an argument from ignorance, I am sure.

But...

The colder things get...the less active they are...generally speaking of coarse. So...if the average temperature of the "space" between planets and stars and galaxies is and average 2.7 kelvin....why does "space" appear to be expanding faster than the speed of light?

Is it simply the space between?

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

See...here is the thing I have trouble understanding. It is an argument from ignorance, I am sure.

No, an argument from ignorance is when a person doesn't know the actual reason for something, and claims that something else (which the person generally favors) must be true as a result.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell

But...

The colder things get...the less active they are...generally speaking of coarse. So...if the average temperature of the "space" between planets and stars and galaxies is and average 2.7 kelvin....why does "space" appear to be expanding faster than the speed of light?

Is it simply the space between?

"Appear to be" are the key words, I think. The best way to envision it is that space is continually producing more space, and it is that 'new' space which gives the appearance of faster-than-light movement, provided there's enough of it between the observer and something else.

Are you familiar with the concept of folding space? It's where you take two arbitrary points and 'fold' the space between them, allowing you to step from one to the other without having to travel all of the intervening distance. Well, space expansion is the opposite of that; it is unfolding rather than being folded. Instead of taking two points and reducing the amount of space between them, you're taking two points and increasing the amount of space between them.

Here's an analogy that might help you to envision it. Take a rulerstick, and use it as an example of space. So imagine that each second, the space between each inch marker doubles. So the 0-inch mark would be twice as far away from the 1-inch mark after one second. But it would be twelve times as far away from the 12-inch mark after the same time frame - thus it would seem to be moving twelve times faster even though none of the relevant points moved at all. Stack up enough inches, and you'd end up with something that seemed to be moving faster than the speed of light from the perspective of the original 0-inch marker.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Almost. The Big Bang, at least based on currently accepted theory, was the initial massive inflation during the first infinitesimal fraction of a second. But you're right that the process appears to be continuing, albeit much more slowly and sedately than that.

That's a pretty good way to put it, actually - the Big Bang as the initial expansion of space from and between the mass that already existed in the universe (which was compressed into something like a singularity), and a continuous series of Little Bangs that have been happening ever since.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I don't know what space is. I'm just reasonably sure it's not nothing, because nothing wouldn't have properties like temperature.

And actually, I wasn't saying that matter doesn't move. Although, I can see why you would say that, since one interpretation of quantum theory is that gravity is simply the curvature of space-time (which again brings up the question of just what space is). But even without that, we still have electromagnetism, which also creates motion.

I'm not married to the concept of either dark matter or dark energy. They make sense, at least in context, but I ran across a really interesting article last night which said that the existence of singularities within a model of physics indicates that something in that model is broken. In my opinion, they're simply us grasping at a way to explain why things in the universe happen the way they do.

'Dark matter' and 'dark energy' are really just placeholder terms for observed phenomenon that currently have no explanation. 'Dark matter' is the placeholder term for the observed phenomenon that that there is more mass in galaxies than our current models account for. 'Dark energy' is the placeholder term for the observed phenomenon that the universe is accelerating at an increasing rate. They are somewhat misnomers, though it's probably more fair to say that they are labels used with terms that are tangentially related to phenomenon that we do understand with the word 'dark' thrown in there to indicate that we don't know what's going on.

'Dark matter' exists - we observe it. What the hell is it? It's this "stuff" (for lack of a better term; doesn't necessarily mean it actually is "stuff" in the same sense that ordinary matter is "stuff") that causes us to measure substantially more matter in some galaxy. If at the end of the day 'dark matter' is actually 'misunderstanding of the fundamental constituents of reality' or 'aberrations in our measurement tools' or 'flaw in our mathematical models' or what have you, it will still be 'dark matter' - we'll just eventually replace that term with whatever it is we understand it to be after more study.

'Dark matter' is real as an observed phenomenon, but whether or not it actually is some form of matter or some other 'thingie'...'Dark energy' is real as an observed phenomenon, but whether or not it actually is some form of energy or some other 'thingie'......we need us more data.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."